The Footy Bogan watches the Pies win a game of mild surprises.
The first mild surprise to me was that Collingwood was favourite - not just in the skewed odds, distorted by Collingwood supporters betting with their hearts, but also in the tipping were egos are at stake.
Then there was the surprise of how easily we gained ascendancy in the first half.
Of course none of this was as momentous as the surprise of watching the last half of the last quarter of Essendon going down to St Kilda last night.
But back to the game.
North got on to the board first with a goal that might even have surprised Bastinac. It really seemed to be something out of nothing, perhaps catching most of the players in the vicinity by surprise. In the stands, we lamented our bad luck, shrugged and turned our attention to the centre square.
The game was not 2 minutes old when Goldsack ran down Wells streaming out of defence. Idiotically, Collingwood played on and the moment was lost. But the signs were there: the Pies were switched on and had come to play. This was soon reflected in key stats like tackle count. Pleasantly surprising on that subject was the number of times Collingwood had two or more tacklers on one opponent.
What further surprised me was that all these pluses were associated with some uncharacteristic clumsiness. Players of both sides seemed to have difficulty keeping their feet or taking clean possession which made the occasional clean pick up and spin out of trouble (Fasolo) come as a bit of a surprise. Similarly for White's snap.
On the other hand, Toovey's fumble - resulting in another goal to Lindsay Thomas - was a surprise of the less pleasant kind. It brought North back to within a kick; it was the closest they would get for the rest of the game. In fairness to Toovey, Sidebottom's handpass might have been a bit severe, but I think most supporters would expect the play to come off most of the time.
Later in the quarter, Toovey spilt a mark that I would normally expect him to clunk. Petrie missed the shot, but it was one he would normally slot.
Frost played perhaps his best game for the Pies, but, half way through the first quarter, he exemplified Collingwood's many execution errors: his decision to centre the ball was not intrinsically incorrect or dangerous, but he made it both when his pass to our Thomas was way off. Fortunately North was unable to punish Frost, who amassed 8 marks, many of them solid and reminiscent of Nathan Brown at his best.
A little later, Grundy spilt a regulation mark, turning an attacking Collingwood move into a North shot for goal.
I was a bit surprised that Macaffer, usually a thoughtful and intelligent player, demonstrated that he was unfamiliar with the out-of-bounds rule: the umpire must call play on from the moment the player steps into the field of play. Perhaps less surprising was the plaintive, "Why is it play on?" from a voice near me. I guess it was too much to expect rational commentary all through the year.
Soon after, Cloke was hit by Scott Thompson as he (Cloke) took a mark. No surprises there. Thompson was duly reported and Cloke advanced 50m. Also not surprising (because they are all stupid - and, in such situations, ill-disciplined) was the eagerness of Collingwood players to have the decision reversed in consequence of their attempts to retaliate in a misguided allegiance to the notion of flying the flag. Why don't they wait until Cloke has had his shot and then retaliate? The resultant penalty will simply take the opponents to the defensive 50m arc. As Barassi often said, it's about controlled aggression.
It was a pleasant surprise to see Collingwood play selfless team footy for most of the day. Time and again the players moved the ball out of defence in a coordinated manner, each player doing a bit, but not trying to do too much. As a result, Collingwood's scoring opportunities were abundant. That the margin was only 3 goals at the first break had little to do with North and a lot to do with Collingwood's execution failures in F50 - sadly, part of a long history.
The second quarter was largely a repeat of the first: Collingwood scored another 5 goals, North improving to 3 goals for the quarter. Collingwood went into the long break double North's score, 66-33. After half time, the game completely changed character; neither team could buy a goal. Collingwood still won Q3, kicking a solitary goal to zip; but North stormed home in the last quarter (sarcasm), 3.3-2.6, one of the surprises there being that not only did Collingwood's percentage exceed 100, it stands this morning higher than North's. Consequently, Collingwood has climbed back into the 8 at 6th, one position above North.
The Pies registered 128 marks to 86; that's not just surprising, that's astonishing.
A chapter from the Who's reading this blog? department, produced a pleasant surprise: time and again players of both sides chose not to take possession and get tackled preferring to tap the ball to advantage. Collingwood players repeated this to good effect throughout the game.
Most of the pundits would tell you that Cloke returned to form. That's a two-edged sword. He racked up marks and shots but finished with, fairly typically, 4 goals, 4 behinds and at least one out on the full, thus failing to achieve even his puny long-term average of 50% accuracy from anywhere. Perhaps no surprises there.
Still, you prefer him to be in the action and contributing as opposed to his output for the year so far.
Part of Cloke's problem is that he makes life difficult for himself by leading to the edges. That was a little more understandable when players were instructed to hug the boundary, but these days our boys attack more often from the centre. I still think he needs a goal sneak like Milne to run around from behind him whenever he marks deep in the pocket. Pendlebury could do it when the kick would favour a left-footer and Beams on the opposite flank.
The pundits also suggested that Swan was back. I'm not so sure. He looked distinctly proppy early on and was far from clean, double-grabbing simple marks. But he was certainly more effective than of late and he managed a game-high 35 disposals (about average for him) and 11 marks - equal to Cloke but one fewer than the story of the day, Sidebottom.
Sidebottom had a day out. He seemed to be on the outer wing, he kept presenting and eventually racked up 34 disposals, most of which he delivered productively. He was on his own so often I could not establish if he even had an opponent. I could not find a single North player who profited from Sidebottom's absence. I'd call it a big win to Collingwood.
It was no surprise to see Grundy tackling with his characteristic gusto.
H played on Harvey who got away from him in the last quarter; but by then the result was no longer in doubt. In the first quarter, the points went to H when he shimmied his way to a nice goal from about 35m.
Clinton Young is a veritable cornucopia of surprises. I observe his praises sung constantly in the media (as recently as yesterday). He has done a few good things, but my perception is that they are outweighed by the preponderance of his execution errors. It looked like he was on the opposite (crowded) wing to Sidebottom where he picked up many possessions in the first quarter, yet ended the match with only 16 disposals.
Fasolo had a heap of it and was very effective.
Keeffe surprised me with his agility when he made to kick it one foot, withdrew when an opponent approached and effortlessly switched to the other side of his body to kick a lovely pass. Both he, Frost and Witts are remarkably agile for such tall players.
Josh Thomas has remarkable balance, speed and - really important for a midfielder - an ability to change directions.
As I said earlier, it was a real team effort; if some players got less of the ball it was because other players stepped in; if I only mention some, it's because they caught my eye.
Elliott, Maxwell, Toovey (despite some errors), Goldsack, all had their moments in the sun.
In the wash-up, Collingwood scored a good win, one that I would have taken greedily with both hands going in, but failed to reflect on the scoreboard the dominance it showed in the play. 13.15 should have been 5 to 8 more goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment